Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Luth-ifer:  your understanding is flawed.

 

Ex-c Chorus:  tell us how our understanding is flawed.

 

Luth-ifer:  tell me what your understanding is first.

 

Ex-c Chorus:  tell us how our understanding is flawed. 

 

Luth-ifer:  why should I answer vagaries?

 

Ex-c Chorus:  tell us the correct understanding, then.

 

Luth-ifer:  no, I asked you first.

 

You cobble together everything else. Why not this?

 

You're an educated professor here. How come I never see you give explanation for anything you say you formerly "Believed"? You just make childish asshole comments.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

31 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

You cobble together everything else. Why not this?

 

You're an educated professor here. How come I never see you give explanation for anything you say you formerly "Believed"? You just make childish asshole comments.

I see you've learned how to use the edit button, finally.

 

As for what I formerly believed, you are more than welcome to read my story in the Testimonials forum and get back to me on it (which, if memory serves, you claimed you were going to do a couple weeks ago).

[midniterider]

Luth has no correct understanding different than ours. He has nada therefore he will continue to stonewall us. 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

It would be sweet if an honest Christian came here one day and said, "You were a Christian once but then stopped believing? Yeah, it happens. Not everyone has the mindset to believe in Jesus, but that's ok. We can still all live together in harmony no matter what our beliefs are."

[disillusioned]

7 minutes ago, midniterider said:

It would be sweet if an honest Christian came here one day and said, "You were a Christian once but then stopped believing? Yeah, it happens. Not everyone has the mindset to believe in Jesus, but that's ok. We can still all live together in harmony no matter what our beliefs are."

 

Makes me miss ironhorse and end3.

 

And even @1AcceptingAThiest1.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Makes me miss ironhorse and end3.

 

And even @1AcceptingAThiest1.

i mess hum tpp. 

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

You were a Christian once but then stopped believing? Yeah, it happens. Not everyone has the mindset to believe in Jesus, but that's ok. We can still all live together in harmony no matter what our beliefs are."

That can be me. Here we go:

"You were a Christian once but then stopped believing? Yeah, it happens. Not everyone has the mindset to believe in Jesus, but that's ok. We can still all live together in harmony no matter what our beliefs are."

We already do "live in harmony". Anybody knocking down your door or running you off the road? Anybody assaulting you or harassing you? If you claim I am, this IS  a public forum and I dont know you from Adam. Err..excuse me...TomDickorHarry. Don't want me talking to you? Don't respond. 

Does unbelief threaten me? Nope. But a "mindset" doesn't determine belief or the truth. 

"No matter what our beliefs?" though???Thats absurd. Otherwise you could still be "in church" and be just fine. If you can Believe jesus was a billy goat? Ahhh thats fine. Youre still "Christian". What does it matter? 

[disillusioned]

4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

See above. PA begs the question, and boils down to "believe this book". For the final time, prove me wrong.

 

Silence noted. 

[midniterider]

36 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

That can be me. Here we go:

"You were a Christian once but then stopped believing? Yeah, it happens. Not everyone has the mindset to believe in Jesus, but that's ok. We can still all live together in harmony no matter what our beliefs are."

We already do "live in harmony". Anybody knocking down your door or running you off the road? Anybody assaulting you or harassing you? If you claim I am, this IS  a public forum and I dont know you from Adam. Err..excuse me...TomDickorHarry. Don't want me talking to you? Don't respond. 

Does unbelief threaten me? Nope. But a "mindset" doesn't determine belief or the truth. 

"No matter what our beliefs?" though???Thats absurd. Otherwise you could still be "in church" and be just fine. If you can Believe jesus was a billy goat? Ahhh thats fine. Youre still "Christian". What does it matter? 

 

And you're good with the "I was a Christian once but stopped believing" ? If so, sweet!

 

Nobody is harming me personally, just my gay relatives. Anyone out there in the bible belt feel any backlash when you say you're an atheist? 

Look at this asshole: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2016/05/23/screaming-christian-in-target-store-is-confronted-by-customer-then-escorted-out-by-security/

[midniterider]

50 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

 

We already do "live in harmony"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

 

Pastor (Officer) Fritts spreading the love of Jesus Christ.

[midniterider]

Here's more harmony coming at ya: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NqyM8WD_-U

 

Racial harmony....can I get an amen?

[LuthAMF]

20 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

 

Pastor (Officer) Fritts spreading the love of Jesus Christ.

Proving what? That Idiots can be Christian or Christians can be idiots?

How about the push to have Christian parents accused of child abuse and fined, incarcerated or have their children taken from them just because they are Christian. Would you support such a thing?

[LuthAMF]

19 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Here's more harmony coming at ya: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NqyM8WD_-U

 

Racial harmony....can I get an amen?

Proving what? You can find crap on YT? Have we devolved to a debate on what you find on YT?

All this has NOTHING to do with PA.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As for what I formerly believed, you are more than welcome to read my story in the Testimonials forum and get back to me on it (which, if memory serves, you claimed you were going to do a couple weeks ago).

Still no comment, @LuthAMF?  Am I to assume you read my story and couldn't find anything wrong with my former beliefs?  Or am I to assume you still haven't even read it after all this time?

[LuthAMF]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Still no comment, @LuthAMF?  Am I to assume you read my story and couldn't find anything wrong with my former beliefs?  Or am I to assume you still haven't even read it after all this time?

Wasnt aware I was under time constraints. Are you going somewhere? Insecure that I'm not focused upon you?

[LuthAMF]

40 minutes ago, midniterider said:

And you're good with the "I was a Christian once but stopped believing" ? If so, sweet!

Sure. But why does that mean I'm not allowed to question or examine? Is the ExC afraid of pressure?

 

42 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Nobody is harming me personally, just my gay relatives.

At the hands of Christians? Christians are doing bodily harm to your gay relatives? Then they need to STOP.

My experience? There is hatred - real hatred toward gays by those unregenerate who hate Christians just as much. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Wasnt aware I was under time constraints. Are you going somewhere? Insecure that I'm not focused upon you?

Not at all.  I just suspect you have no answer.  That would be in keeping with your modus operandi.

[midniterider]

 

34 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Sure. But why does that mean I'm not allowed to question or examine? Is the ExC afraid of pressure?

 

 

I'm good with that. Thanks. Examine and question all ya like. 

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

Oh, wow, a whole thread about Calvinism! I'm super late to the party! Sorry I've been super busy with private life matters lately, so I haven't have the time for interesting debates.

 

Going back to the original question that @midniterider posted (waaaay back when - I don't even know if it's appropriate to bring it up at this point) the Calvinists in my life interpret the "world" in "God so loved the world" in John 3:16 as referring only and specifically to the Elect. In their mind Jesus only died to save the elect, and in fact some Calvinist pastors will argue that one of the consequences of Jesus's sacrifice is an even deeper damnation for the Unelect. So basically if you're one of the Unelect Jesus died so you can be punished even more horribly for all of eternity, thereby glorifying God with your suffering. God so much enjoys your suffering that he would send his only son to die just that you would suffer more, it seems.

 

Anyways, long story short, if you redefine words willy nilly like Calvinists do you can make any sentence in the bible mean anything (notice all the debating as to what 'elect' means, exactly). If Calvinism was a natural interpretation of the bible then they wouldn't have to rely so much on their own terminology and precise definitions. Take, for example, Five Point Calvinism. If these Five Points (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Preservation of the Saints) were the absolute core of Jesus's teachings, as these Calvinists claim, then Jesus would have laid out the five points precisely in that manner ( after all, he clearly laid each member of the Holy Trinity, didn't he? ). But no - Calvinists have a lot of things to say and a lot of quotes to make and a lot of fancy academic theological terms because that's how they drown out the nonsense they use to justify that somehow cruelty is a desirable trait in a divine authority figure. Figures.

 

Adios,

-DT

[mwc]

11 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"Asserted such..."

Anyone can attempt to wade back through years of "assertion" and come up empty. I'm not asking for that.

 

     You've pretty much asserted such.  I'm not a mind reader.  They said so and I had no reason not to accept that assertion.  They, unlike you, at least took the extra step and accepted the invitation to make explanation.  Whether or not I'm doing them justice after all these years may be another story.  Again, I asked you to step-in but so far you seem unwilling (or unable) so we're left with my recollections.

 

         mwc

 

[LuthAMF]

11 hours ago, disillusioned said:

You seem to like very much to pretend as if no one but you has any inkling about, well, anything, but you don't seem inclined to actually present anything substantive in support of this pretense. 

 

Not true. This is ExC.net. I expect that those here can articulate Christian doctrine and show how they have refuted it in order to become ExC.net. Thus far, I observe great confusion. 

[mwc]

11 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, I understand that this is an argument that is commonly made,  but it isn't a good one. It amounts to begging the question.

 

The answer to the question "how do you know the Bible to be true" is "to know the Bible to be true, you must presuppose God", but not only that, you must also reason "correctly", whatever that means. I could easily assert that if you do everything "correctly" you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is false, even with the presupposition of God. But I suppose that could be countered by saying that one's presupposition of God is flawed. It does seem to me though that you have to also presuppose the "correctness" of your reasoning,  although I suppose that this could be seen as flowing from, or as an aspect of, the original presupposition. But in either case, you have now basically just presupposed the Bible's truth. Hence, "believe this book".

 

The statements "The Christian God exists" and "The Bible is true" are roughly equivalent logically. One can't be true without the other. If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true, otherwise it wouldn't be the Christian God that exists. And if the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists because the Bible makes that claim. But this means that to assume one of these statements is simply to assume the other. Again, "believe this book".

     Ultimately, you'll believe the book.  You'll have no choice.  Why wouldn't you?  It will have proven itself true.  In a sense to say to "believe this book" is just a short-cut.  When any information is presented to you it should always be compared to what is in the book to see if it is truth.  The book works as a truth filter in that sense.  So something like evolution doesn't work.  It is filtered out.  We can safely ignore it.

 

     It may all be circular but since it all comes from god I guess it has to be circular.  It starts and ends with god.

 

          mwc

 

[LuthAMF]

2 minutes ago, mwc said:

11 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, I understand that this is an argument that is commonly made,  but it isn't a good one. It amounts to begging the question.

 

The answer to the question "how do you know the Bible to be true" is "to know the Bible to be true, you must presuppose God", but not only that, you must also reason "correctly", whatever that means. I could easily assert that if you do everything "correctly" you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is false, even with the presupposition of God. But I suppose that could be countered by saying that one's presupposition of God is flawed. It does seem to me though that you have to also presuppose the "correctness" of your reasoning,  although I suppose that this could be seen as flowing from, or as an aspect of, the original presupposition. But in either case, you have now basically just presupposed the Bible's truth. Hence, "believe this book".

 

The statements "The Christian God exists" and "The Bible is true" are roughly equivalent logically. One can't be true without the other. If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true, otherwise it wouldn't be the Christian God that exists. And if the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists because the Bible makes that claim. But this means that to assume one of these statements is simply to assume the other. Again, "believe this book".

Incredibly minimalistic and shallow.

 

2 minutes ago, mwc said:

 Ultimately, you'll believe the book.  You'll have no choice.  Why wouldn't you?  It will have proven itself true.  In a sense to say to "believe this book" is just a short-cut.  When any information is presented to you it should always be compared to what is in the book to see if it is truth.  The book works as a truth filter in that sense.  So something like evolution doesn't work.  It is filtered out.  We can safely ignore it.

 

     It may all be circular but since it all comes from god I guess it has to be circular.  It starts and ends with god.

 

The question remains, does the bible actually prove itself or does it not? This is not circular and requires an answer. Also, IF it does, HOW does it do so? These are questions you either will not or cannot answer.

[disillusioned]

3 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Incredibly minimalistic and shallow.

 

...as opposed to this robust,  deep, fully fleshed-out response. 

[LuthAMF]

2 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

...as opposed to this robust,  deep, fully fleshed-out response. 

I can't help what you write.

"The answer to the question "how do you know the Bible to be true" is "to know the Bible to be true, you must presuppose God" 

Not true. i just told Joshpantera in our debate, "A person does not open scripture, read of God whom he does not know and of whom he has no real comprehension and presuppose Him to be real."

11 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

you must also reason "correctly", whatever that means.

You don't know what that means? Telling. And you're the supposed logic experts here.

 

12 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

I could easily assert that if you do everything "correctly" you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is false, even with the presupposition of God.

The value of that statement? What is "doing everything correctly"?

 

14 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

But I suppose that could be countered by saying that one's presupposition of God is flawed.

Which is a legitimate possibility. But oh...can't be flawed when it doesn't exist. OFF THE HOOK! How convenient that "presupposition".

 

16 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

It does seem to me though that you have to also presuppose the "correctness" of your reasoning,  although I suppose that this could be seen as flowing from, or as an aspect of, the original presupposition.

Nope. Correctness of reasoning assumes a standard. Your standard is arbitrary.

 

17 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

But in either case, you have now basically just presupposed the Bible's truth. Hence, "believe this book".

Nope. There are reasons to believe it. Are reasons a foreign concept to you? Of course! When there is a presupposed bias involved.

 

20 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

The statements "The Christian God exists" and "The Bible is true" are roughly equivalent logically.

If one proves the other. Do they? But where have you found these "statements"?

 

22 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

If the Christian God exists, then the Bible is true, otherwise it wouldn't be the Christian God that exists.

Who has told you this? If God exists, He exists. PERIOD. But then WHY the bible? Because God has further revealed Himself to us in scripture in a manner we would not otherwise rightly acknowledge Him and He has spoken in scripture. 

 

24 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

And if the Bible is true, then the Christian God exists because the Bible makes that claim.

Off the rails again. Your little syllogism has collapsed. Is the testimony true? Where does it give us inaccurate  testimony of God? How do you know? What other source do you possess that reveals God in a different and better way? To cite another "religious text" only makes you a believer in a "god"; any god. Who cares?

 

46 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

But this means that to assume one of these statements is simply to assume the other. Again, "believe this book".

Not. True.

And still you assert this as though it is without reason to do so. Which is primary? The Revealer or that which reveals? If the Revealer uses means to reveal, on what basis do you say He did not do so?